The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in rape cases; contradictions in testimonies and lack of corroborative evidence led to the acquittal of the appellant.

JUDGMENT

Date : 22-12-2025

The present appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction dated 10.02.2005 and order of sentence dated 11.02.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-II, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No. 186/1997 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the informant recorded her statement to the effect that while she had been sleeping on the varandah of her house and her daughter had been sleeping inside, on 24/25-02-1996 about 1.00 A.M., the appellant Kari Yadav came and gagged her mouth and forcibly committed sexual intercourse with her. Some scuffle took place and she received injuries on both her legs. Hearing her muffled sound, her daughter woke up and raised alarm and Yogendra Yadav and Madan Yadav reached there and, thereafter, the appellant Kari Yadav fled away from the spot.

3. On the basis of the aforesaid statement of the informant, a formal FIR being Singhwara P.S. Case No. 15/1996 was instituted under Section 376 IPC. The police investigated the matter and submitted charge sheet under Sections 341 , 323, 324 and 376 IPC against the appellant finding the case true. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of sessions where charges were framed against the sole accused/appellant for the offence under Sections 323 , 341 and 376 IPC, to which, the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. During trial, the prosecution examined altogether six witnesses in support of its case and also exhibited some documents. In the documents exhibited by the prosecution, Exhibit 1 is writing and signature on fardbeyan. Exhibit 2 is forensic medical report of the victim and Exhibit 3 is the forensic report on the material seized by the police. The defence examined husband of the informant as its sole witness to deny the allegation.

5. The learned trial court, after consideration of the evidence, came to the finding that the accused was guilty of commission of offence under Section 376 IPC and further held that offence under Sections 323 and 341 were not made out against the appellant and ordered the accused/appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. The accused/appellant was taken into custody and vide order dated 21.03.2006, learned Single Judge of this Court enlarged the appellant on bail and since then it appears the appellant has been continuing on bail.

6. Since there has been no representation on behalf of the appellant when the matter has been taken up, this Court, vide order dated 29.11.2025, appointed Mr. Purnendu Keshav, Advocate as Amicus Curiae to assist this Court on behalf of the appellant.

7. The learned Amicus Curiae appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad in law as well as on facts and are liable to be set aside. There is material contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. There was doubt over any occurrence taking place and the appellant was falsely implicated due to dispute between the victim and her husband and this appellant, who is nephew of the husband of the